Talk:Washington Healthplanfinder

Are board member names "encyclopedic"?

It is not everyday that I disagree with user:WhatamIdoing, but in my opinion giving the public access to information about those who are supposed to represent their interests is of utmost importance.

Many corporations with pages on Wikipedia spell out the names of members of their Board of Directors. There are several trees of categories on Wikipedia that contain pages of Board members, for example: Category:Corporate directors by company. So why are those who sit on Boards of non-profit organizations "not encyclopedic"? XOttawahitech (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that non-notable people who happen to serve on the board of any organization should have their names spammed into an encyclopedia. This is basically promotional (and often self-promotional) material, and I remove it whenever I encounter it.

Have you looked into a traditional encyclopedia recently? I have, and I have never seen all the board members listed. It's actually rare to find any board members listed, unless one is famous or otherwise highly relevant (e.g., the article on Microsoft in EB mentions that Bill Gates stayed on the board; the article on Apple, Inc., mentions only one: "[Jobs] also secured an investment from Michael Markkula, a wealthy veteran of the Intel Corporation who became Apple's largest shareholder and an influential member of Apple's board of directors." None of their articles on the Red Cross organizations mention any board members). So if traditional encyclopedias basically don't ever include this, why would we believe that it's "encyclopedic"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is different from traditional encyclopedias in many respects. For example, I speculate that a number of footballers that are considered notable on Wikipedia do not appear in traditional encyclopedias, but I may be wrong.

As far as corporate directors are concerned, it is obvious that there are many more than Bill Gates and Michael Markkula on Wikipedia (see the category I mentioned above. XOttawahitech (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

An Encyclopedia of Football would doubtless include quite a few footballers, but notability isn't what determines whether the individual facts in an article are appropriate for an encyclopedia. Can you explain why you believe that a complete list of non-notable people who happen to currently be on the board is "encyclopedic"? Usually people decide that something is encyclopedic if most encyclopedias usually include it, and clearly that does not describe this material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see how spam fits in here at all. Individuals usually act in a socially responsible manner when they know they are being scrutenized. I do not understand why including the names of public board members is not "encyclopeic"? XOttawahitech (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Because encyclopedias do not traditionally include this kind of information. Encyclopedias do not traditionally include the names of board members. What encyclopedias do not traditionally include is the definition of "not encyclopedic".

Advocacy websites traditionally include this. Self-promotion pages run by organizations traditionally include this. Encyclopedias do not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't know if encyclopedias traditionally include public board members names. However, I do believe this is crucial information that the public is entitled to, just as including the name of any democratically elected or appointed representative, and has nothing to do with self-promotion or spam. XOttawahitech (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

1. The public is also entitled to the far more crucial information of a phone number for their local police station, but we don't provide that in any of our articles, either.
2. As I said above, I have actually looked into a number of encyclopedias for the purpose of considering this question, and they do not include any lists of board members.
3. Given that the adage, "there is no such thing as bad publicity", is widely held to be true for politicians (and this is a politically related organization, even if it's not a "partisan" one), it is difficult for me to understand why you don't see listing the names of these non-notable people as being promotional in nature. They prominently list their names on http://www.wahbexchange.org/about-us/exchange-staff/ (the same nine people you chose to list) because it's good for their careers, not because they think that a list of their names will help individuals get insurance.

I'll go request a third opinion. Perhaps someone else will have an opinion about whether this is appropriate content for an encyclopedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion

I spend some of my time on WP defending articles on organisations from editors who wish to attack then for some reason. Equally, it is important that WP articles do not become promotional vehicles for organisations or people. In my opinion editing for the above reasons poses a serious threat to the quality and authority of WP.

WP is not a written encyclopedia and it does not have the same limitations as one so it is possible to add material that is not normally found in a written encyclopedia. That does not mean, however, that we should add every piece of information on a subject that is available to us. We still have the policy that information in WP should be encyclopedic and the only real reference for that concept that we have is the written encyclopedia. I do not think that we should go beyond that unless the proposed additions are totally non-controversial or we have widespread community consensus.

In this case there is controversy and the suggestion that the lists of names in the 'Governance' is unencyclopedic and overly promotional. I tend to agree and suggest that the names are removed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No platinum plans offered?

Looking through the plans offered on the official website I noticed there are only Gold/Silver/Bronze(20%/30%/40% copay) plans offered but no Platinum(10% copay). I thought the ACA (Obamacare) reuired all four be available to the public which in 2014 will be required to carry health insurance? I know little about this topic, but with hospital bills easily reaching $100,000 how can the public afford a 20% copay? Just wondering. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Washington Healthplanfinder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151208062718/http://www.insurance.wa.gov/your-insurance/health-insurance/individuals-families/health-plans-rates/index.html to http://www.insurance.wa.gov/your-insurance/health-insurance/individuals-families/health-plans-rates/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)